Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Why no love for the q9550?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Internet Explorer
  • Intel i7
Last response: in CPUs
November 22, 2008 4:02:11 AM

Core i7's are out now. Thats wonderful; new sockets, new mobos, new RAM.

But just like every launch, prices are marketed to enthusiasts (ie people with alot of green to burn). But here's what's been bothering me since the flurry of i7 reviews came pouring in...

Why no comparisons between q9550 and Core i7 920?? There is not a single review that even puts the 9550 in the lineup. Strange.

The q9550 is an excellent chip, its cool, fast, and efficient. So much so, I have a suspicious feeling that a q9550 coupled with some decent RAM and a good GPU will probably keep up, if not out perform, a core i7 920.

That may be why pricing for a q9550 is higher than a core i7 920 ($319 vs. $289, respectively). The idea here is to encourage purchasing of the newer chip even though it performs the same as the previous generation by setting a lower price for the new chip.

By standard market trend, older model merchandise always gets slashed in price to make room for new stock. Why not in this case? My guess is that Intel knows that the q9550 is pretty equal to the i7 920, so they HAVE to lower the starting price of a 920 to sell units rather than have everyone running for 9550's which would supposedly have been cut in price.

Any input from you guys?

More about : love q9550

November 22, 2008 4:10:11 AM

It's better than Nehalem for gaming due to the cache. Intel has a chokehold on reviewers probably.
November 22, 2008 5:02:33 AM

I dont know, they benched it against a better quad ( QX ) and the i7 920 fared better or was on par.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2008 5:05:51 AM

The core 2 is not likely to see any real significant price drops. A core i7 takes a lot more money to build then a core 2 system, thus anyone looking to save money already has incentive to go buy a core 2 vs. a core i7.
November 22, 2008 5:23:56 AM

I am not on board with a lot of the I7 hype. Needing to buy 3 sticks of DDR 3 memory with no real world performance gains over ddr2 is just a waste of money to me.
November 22, 2008 2:08:36 PM

I'm willing to believe in the core i7's ability, I mean it is a new architecture which definately is a step up form the previous, on paper.

I'm sure if we were looking at a 940 or higher than a comparison to a q9550 wouldn't be so wise. Those higher clocks with the new micro structure will surely out-wit the older Core 2's. But I'm not convinced that buying a 920 is worth it in the grand scheme of things.

If I were buying a system right now, getting on some fastly dropping DDR2 and a HD 4870 plus the q9550 would be the most cost-efficent. But then again the question becomes whats the longevity of such course of action...

Socket 775s are a dying breed and although you can build a pretty awesome rig using the old socket, there will be no room for upgrades in the future as Intel has abandoned it to go for the new socket. So maybe more investment now will in terms of an i7 will pay off in the future when you can easily upgrade to dropping prices in new hardware.

But I'm still standing by the point that a q9550 is a better buy than a 920.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Hyperthreading on the i7s? I just hope its not a fluke like on the P4s....
November 22, 2008 2:15:17 PM

This week Frys had the Q9550 with a free ECS mobo for $229.99
November 22, 2008 2:46:56 PM

i second hotfuzz... they did compare it to a qx9770 i believe, and it was really close in performance

newegg's terrible pricing is not their fault, if you see the q9450 is MORE than the q9550... that doesn't mean its better

more money =/= better

so if it was a descision between the q9550 and core i7, it would be a tough one, but i heard core i7's OC abilities are limited [correct me if im wrong] and the q9550[with an E0 step] can hit 3.8ghz on air. THATS REALLY GOOD, and especially if you can get it stable for a few more years, you'll probably be able to hold onto until the next socket =P
November 22, 2008 2:48:45 PM

Wile I like the Q9550, my personal choice would be a Q9650, because of the Q9650's higher multiplier and better overclocking ability. That said, for the moment I think a machine built around a Q9550 is presently a better deal than any of the i7 chips. Only the i7 EE 965 looks good when it comes to serious overclocking, but its price will limit it to those with a lot of money. So for the moment, my opinion goes to the 775 based Intel platforms. The 775 may be considered older and at the end of the line, but that doesn't mean its not any good.
November 22, 2008 2:53:19 PM

Well,I guess it's up to the individual situation in this case.For instance,if one already has a Q6600 or above,I think you will be just fine for quite a long time without upgrading unless your real-life job has anything to do with rendering or encoding.But on the other hand if you are with a lets say
P4 or the like(which Im now,but just ordered a whole I7 system from newegg last night.)and you are not really tight on budget,why not spent the $300 extra for a i7 920 for some extra performance gain and yet given a upgrade path in the future,that $300 over the core 2 path is quite worth it for both the reasons I mentioned.
November 22, 2008 3:08:35 PM

why bother comparing the the i7 to the 9550 when even the QX9770 can't even keep up with the 920 in many instances. It's true that is not the case in gaming but let's face it gaming is mostly limited by the VC.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2008 3:24:07 PM

I have the q9550 and it rocks... no core i7 for me...

but allhands show me benchmarks where the 920 beats the qx9770.... in heavily multi-threaded SYNTHETIC benchmarks it wins.... so what?

Unless your encoding... or using winrar or something you won't notice any benefit from paying more for your system... q9550 is a great chip and will always be overshadowed by the q6600 (price) and the core i7 (920) (same price)... but those who aren't willing to dish out several hundred on ram are able to get a processor that performs similarly for several hundred less... IMO q9550 FTW!!!
November 22, 2008 3:44:52 PM

Anyways, it's all Intel VS Intel,, so guess who wins? lol
November 22, 2008 3:52:44 PM

bemaitea2 said:
Core i7's are out now. Thats wonderful; new sockets, new mobos, new RAM.

But just like every launch, prices are marketed to enthusiasts (ie people with alot of green to burn). But here's what's been bothering me since the flurry of i7 reviews came pouring in...

Why no comparisons between q9550 and Core i7 920?? There is not a single review that even puts the 9550 in the lineup. Strange.


What about this?: THG test

Helps to actually look for reviews.
November 22, 2008 4:11:02 PM

eklipz330 said:
i second hotfuzz... they did compare it to a qx9770 i believe, and it was really close in performance

newegg's terrible pricing is not their fault, if you see the q9450 is MORE than the q9550... that doesn't mean its better

more money =/= better

so if it was a descision between the q9550 and core i7, it would be a tough one, but i heard core i7's OC abilities are limited [correct me if im wrong] and the q9550[with an E0 step] can hit 3.8ghz on air. THATS REALLY GOOD, and especially if you can get it stable for a few more years, you'll probably be able to hold onto until the next socket =P



920 easily clocks to 3.8 ghz
November 22, 2008 4:32:29 PM

Really, no one has enough money to blow on that CPU when they can get something way cheaper and OC to grab the same performance.
November 22, 2008 9:08:50 PM

Good link DXrick...

Interesting enough, a whole slurry of tests show the latest generation of 775's outing the 920.

From that data, 920 is NOT a good buy. The 940, on the other hand, is a step up...but not enough to warrent a $500+ price tag.
November 22, 2008 11:27:15 PM

Narr said:
Really, no one has enough money to blow on that CPU when they can get something way cheaper and OC to grab the same performance.


nobody needs a Ferrari for in town driving but they still have a market place. a Volvo can handle the task just fine but that doesnt really enter the mind of someone that can afford the Ferrari.
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2008 11:33:14 PM

Core i7 is great for gaming once you go multi-GPU.
November 22, 2008 11:40:30 PM

thats the appeal to me randomizer. maybe Deneb will do it better but either way, it provides more time to cushion the expense from the mrs! :D 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2008 3:10:46 PM

I don't actually get why core 7 is slower in games with only 1 card.... is it because it has less cache? or what... its slower... like whats up with that
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2008 9:02:57 PM

I'd go with less cache being the cause.
November 23, 2008 9:27:34 PM

well i think its because it is engineered for the whole quad mantra as jaydee said it. i dont think they were concerned with current apps and games that dont benefit from a quad to begin with. for that arguments sake, the e8600's are faster than all the quads under a thousand dollars in the now.
November 23, 2008 10:01:21 PM

Quote:
I don't actually get why core 7 is slower in games with only 1 card.... is it because it has less cache? or what... its slower... like whats up with that


Sort of an over generalization.

In Some Games, its slower with a single Graphics Card - That is likely due to reduced cache.
Other Games, it is faster with a single Graphics Card - While I have not analyzed, they are likely more threaded games.

However, it's not really an issue because it's highly unlikely you will find any game in which any i7 can't deliver performance required from the CPU. (117 vs 120FPS does not matter).

However, There could be very heavy cpu games where it could help.

November 24, 2008 6:19:58 AM

randomizer said:
Core i7 is great for gaming once you go multi-GPU.

+1, butt han the question rises: is it worth doing it? Consideration: power consumption, noise, cooling, etc.... :heink: 
November 24, 2008 9:10:17 AM

i would only go with i7 if i had the most extreme graphics system. otherwise, i would get a nice core 2, and save that money to spend on the better graphics! otherwise wats the point?

thats really only for gaming though. if you're into photo/video editing and all that cpu heaving stuff, then good on you. go grab an i7.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2008 10:57:32 AM

allhands said:
why bother comparing the the i7 to the 9550 when even the QX9770 can't even keep up with the 920 in many instances. It's true that is not the case in gaming but let's face it gaming is mostly limited by the VC.


Price / Performance, thats why.

Remember, the QX series simply means unlocked multiplyer, so they were comparing a 3.2 Quad to a (3.0?) i7, and for gaming at least (and thats what most people care about), the Quad was either even or slightly ahead. We want to see how a 3.0 i7 matches against the more mainstream 2.8 Quad and 3.0 Quad, to see if there is any point saving a few hundred when we make our next builds.
December 17, 2010 5:58:34 AM

I recently picked up a q9550 real cheap ($120) I overclocked it to 3.75ghz and it outperforms my cousins i7 860 in the everest benchmarks.

I got a score of 26600 where my cousins 860 got around 24300 mind you the 860 wasn't overclocked but instead of forking out money for a new motherboard, ram etc... I could cheaply upgrade what I've got and save my money for the future. and at $120 (good luck finding one for that price...) I'm not as worried about damaging it while overclocking as i would an i7.

Even my previous core 2 duo e6750 got a score of around 17000 when i overclocked it to 3.4ghz. (no voltage change)

My cousin now overclocked his 860 to i think 3.4 or 3.6 ghz without voltage change and now gets something like 32000 on the benchmarks but at least I've saved more money to put towards future upgrades than him! :pt1cable: 
a c 217 à CPUs
December 17, 2010 11:47:33 AM

Normally I avoid posting in necro-threads, but I'd love a little C2Q 9550 action for $125.